My goal is to inform potential law school students and applicants of the ugly realities of attending law school. DO NOT ATTEND UNLESS: (1) YOU GET INTO A TOP 8 LAW SCHOOL ON SCHOLARSHIP; (2) YOU GET A FULL-TUITION SCHOLARSHIP TO ATTEND; (3) YOU HAVE EMPLOYMENT AS AN ATTORNEY SECURED THROUGH A RELATIVE OR CLOSE FRIEND; OR (4) YOU ARE FULLY AWARE BEFOREHAND THAT YOUR HUGE INVESTMENT IN TIME, ENERGY, AND MONEY DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, GUARANTEE A JOB AS AN ATTORNEY OR IN THE LEGAL INDUSTRY.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Charred Bacon: Hideous Law School Pigs Face Less Job Security

Welcome to the Barbecue Pit, Filthy Porker:

On August 12, 2013, the Wall Street Journal published Jennifer Smith’s piece, “Law-School Professors Face Less Job Security.” Look at this opening:

“The main body that accredits U.S. law schools is moving to reduce job protections for law professors, who have long enjoyed the security of academic tenure.

The shift comes at a time of plunging student enrollment, and could make it easier for law schools to trim the ranks of full-time faculty, whose salaries consume a considerable share of tuition dollars.

Some law schools that are struggling to balance their budgets have dismissed administrative staff in recent months. Others are offering buyouts to reduce the number of tenured professors or are leaving empty posts unfilled.” [Emphasis mine]

These academic thieves and hustlers never gave a damn about their students or recent graduates. They only cared about putting asses in seats. The swine continued to raise tuition to ridiculous levels, when they KNEW that the overall U.S. job market was GLUTTED and shrinking. Now, these pigs are starting to feel the effects of their rampant, unchecked greed.

Take note of the following admission, later on in the article:

"Law professors and law deans are paid too much," said Kent Syverud, dean of Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told the ABA's task force on the future of legal education."Either we have to be paid less, or we have to do more…. The whole problem of costs probably would go away if our salaries were halved." [Emphasis mine]

This statement is from one of the scam participants. It did not come from an angry scam-blogger or a neutral observer. The rat bastards are finally publicly recognizing the truth.

“For a decade, law schools have been jacking up tuition, class sizes, professors’ salaries, and employment numbers, despite the fact that the legal market has been in a slide, if not a freefall, for much of that time. Everyone knew it was unsustainable, but law schools were either oblivious or uncaring.

Finally, the bubble has burst. The pool of applicants to law school is shrinking drastically, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The University of St. Thomas School of Law, for example, received “59 percent fewer applications this year than in 2010.”

Law school is no longer the default decision it used to be for smart college graduates who aren’t sure where to go next, said James Leipold, executive director of the National Association for Law Placement.” [Emphasis mine]

The American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of the Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar on Friday tentatively embraced two plans that would eliminate tenure as an accreditation requirement…

Many council members argued that the existing tenure requirement for doctrinal faculty had driven up the cost of legal education and tied the hands of administrators seeking new ways of running law schools or to oust underperforming professors.

“The biggest financial issues we have right now are our fixed costs, and our fixed costs come from tenured, salaried professors,” said council member Maureen O’Rourke, dean of Boston University Law School. “The solution is not to give everyone tenure, but to give no one tenure. Frankly, we don’t need 200 law schools that look like Harvard Law School and value the same things as Harvard Law School. Somewhere down the line, the students got lost.” [Emphasis mine]

Univer$itie$ and college$ figured this scheme out long ago. As reported in the New York Times by Christopher Shea, back on September 3, 2010: “Nearly two-thirds of all college teachers are non-tenure-track adjuncts.” Apparently, it took longer, i.e. until it was inevitable, for the law school swine to cut back on faculty pay and security.

Conclusion: I understand that most of the Boomer cockroach “law professors” and administrators will end up cashing out and enjoying an early, forced retirement. At least, those pieces of trash will no longer collect $200K+ annual salaries – for merely reciting their same old notes about archaic, parsed cases. You “educator” pigs reap what you sow. Maybe you hags should“Get over it and move to Nebraska!”

In the final analysis, you whiny dung beetles are not entitled to tenure. “Academic freedom” is a silly joke. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are as expendable as the rest of us. Many of you have claimed that you could earn more in private practice. Well, now you have your chance to prove that assertion. Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature think that cash-strapped government agencies and law firms will be looking to hire 60 year old academic hacks/ass-clowns who have written numerous law review articles about esoteric topics?!?!

The fraud has been exposed- and thanks to you Nando for all of your excellent work in that. The system of education fraud is crumbling now, but too slowly. Hopefully it will pick up speed in the near future, as even some of the lemmings are running the other way now...

First, congrats to Nando for bringing this scam out of the shadows-but a note of caution. These guys may be scrambling, but they are not about to actually work for a living. With acceptance rates approaching 100%, the only thing that will put a stop to this scam will be cutting off the still limitless supply of loan money given to willing lemmings.

For any people who wonder or complain why Nando puts graphic photos on his blogs (Thank You!), he is trying to cut to the chase about a serious issue. It reminds me of all the commercials I saw as a kid about drug use in the 1980's. Here is an egg (which is supposed to be your brain) and a second later there is an egg frying in a pan--this is your brain on drugs. These photos are a depiction of your financial life after LAW SCHOOL.

Acceptance rates are approaching 85 percent. With that in mind, law profs are praying for advances in human cloning. If that fails they'll be willing to accept anyone that's completed at least 2 semesters at community college.

Nando, a large percentage of these charlatans don't publish anything after they get tenure. So, there's even less reason for a law firm to hire them. They have a knowledge base confined to one little area of the law that has no real practical application. And clients won't grovel and worship at their feet like moron 1L's do.

Law profs at TTT's are in for a rude awakening when the only place that will hire them is the Verizon Customer Service Call Center.

Most of those losing their jobs will likely be minimally paid adjunct teachers anyway who all are practicing attorneys. The Tenured aren't going anywhere absent their school going out of business, and that will happen only to the for profit outliers before it happens to mos to other law schools. Like it has been mentioned . . there will be an open admission policy so plenty will sign up to go to accredited law schools regardless of their abilities or job prospects.

There are some professors who could do well in private practice--Dershowitz, Tribe, Chemerinsky, Lussig, etc. The rest have really nothing to offer except hip hop and the law, etc. What client will pay money for that BS?

You can run from the basic laws of economics, but you can't hide. This trend is totally due to the advent of the internet where someone can discover the truth about law school in a few minutes in front of a computer. Nando--you are more responsible than anyone else (maybe along with Campos) in exposing the truth about the law school scam. Kudos to you for still fighting the good fight after all this time.

On August 18, 2013, the Washington Post published a Catherine Ho article entitled "An end to tenure at law schools?" Check out the following excerpt:

"Some law school deans are applauding the changes to tenure, saying it would give them more flexibility in deciding how long to keep faculty employed. Many law schools are seeing enrollment and application numbers drop, and fewer students means less demand for permanent faculty — and less tuition money to pay their salaries.

The change “would be helpful because we could acquire faculty without getting into a lifetime relationship,” said Daniel Polsby, dean of George Mason University School of Law. “The demand for legal education ebbs and flows. Sometimes we get more customers, sometimes less ... As a manager with a budget, I want the ability to respond.”

Tenured faculty salaries are a fixed cost that make up about a quarter of the law school’s budget, and anything that could help limit fixed costs is a good thing, Polsby said. Like many law schools, George Mason’s first-year class is smaller than in years past — 160 first-year law students enrolled for 2013-14, which fell short of the school’s enrollment target of 200.

“Most of the big salaries I have to deal with are instructional faculty,” he said. “A tenured faculty member is a fixed cost. I would like to have fewer fixed costs and more flexibility to decide whether I want someone for one semester or one year or three semesters or six semesters.”

Not all of Polsby’s counterparts agree. William Treanor, dean of Georgetown Law, is concerned the changes could undercut the mission of law schools, which is to promote dialogue, even when opinions may clash."

Ass-Hat William Treanor deserves his own TTR entry, for those idiotic, $elf-$erving remarks alone. We know that faculty salaries account for a large portion of a toilet’s budget. This is reflected in the sick tuition rates. The bastards did nothing to address the situation UNTIL fewer people started applying and enrolling in law school!

Lastly, thank you guys for your support and kind words. I recognize those who came before me. Loyola 2L, Calico Cat, Skadden Farts, and unperson played a crucial role before I came on the scene. There were other early contributors, such as Amir Efrati, Tom the Temp, John Bungso, etc. Jobless JD, BIDER, JD Underdog, and Esq. Never added great commentary. In fact, JJD sent me the link and full text of the Wall Street Journal article cited in the main entry above.

I detest cockroaches, which is I go after the law schools so ardently. I am sick of watching these bitches and hags FINANCIALLY RAPE legions of students each year. There is no valid reason to pay a “law professor” well into six figures annually. Hell, first year lectures could be uploaded to Youtube - or placed in CD or DVD format, for perhaps $50 a subject. Yes, you could load an entire “doctrinal” course onto a series of DVDs, and charge customers a small fee. I plan to keep stomping the pigs in their snout, face and ass, until they stop breathing.

Great Picture. Everyone knows that law professors are way overpaid. The amount of hours they work should classify them as part-time workers.

They should do away with tenure. It costs students too much to have it in place with little benefit. Law deans should be banned from ABA committees, like that joker that runs New England Law. They are only going to come up with self-serving standards.

It is time law schools serve the profession, instead of the sacred cow law professors.

As part time workers (which is what they are) they should also not get full benefits or retirement. What other job pays so much for so little work? CEOs are greedy assholes but at least they work insane hours.

Nando glad to see your attribution to others, and I will admit I sometimes miss those old blogs. Yes costs should come down in both law school and law practice. But, I will only take issue at the you tube/DVD approach to law..there should always be room for great classroom law teachers. I think I am better at approaching legal issues thanks to their direction.

In 2011, the ABA cockroaches published a study labeled "After Tenure: Post-Tenure Law Professors in the United States." Scroll down to page 56 of this report, to look at this conclusion.

"Backgrounds: Predictably, most tenured law professors did very well in law school. Judging from these professors’ parents’ educational levels, law teachers tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds. (Analysis of other data on family background is currently underway.) Interestingly, educational levels of the mothers of professors of color and white women tended to be higher than those of white men"

For $ome rea$on, the rodents “forgot” to mention social class. Why the hell reward members of the upper middle class who did well in law school with tenured positions that typically pay $150K or more – for teaching 1-3 classes per semester?!?! That is a waste of resources, and it greatly impacts the students’ debt load.

I don’t expect this proposal to affect the outrageous tuition rates charged by the law school pigs. After all, the bastards will simply enhance their ability to stockpile cash – in order to bolster their endowments.

LSTC posted an excellent blog entry entitled “Cooley Weathering Temporary Storm,” on August 19, 2013. His analysis is based on an article in the Lansing State Journal, from the previous day.

“As for the [$111 million cash as-of early 2011], he calls it a nest egg.

“Our model has basically been the grasshopper and the ants from your fables,” [Don] LeDuc said. “We set aside a fair amount of money to weather what we thought the storm would be..."

LeDuc believes this a cyclical downturn. He said the effects of a bad economy have been “exacerbated by the stuff on the Internet.”

His prediction: The economy will improve. Government agencies will start hiring lawyers again. The older generation of lawyers will retire. Students graduating in three or four years will find a much more welcoming job market.”

At this point, every recent college or law school graduate with a brain stem is aware that the schools are only in this for the money. Don LeDuc is a reprehensible dog. However, his conduct further shows the true, base intentions of these supposed “non-profit institutions of higher learning.”

Its great to say don't go to law school . . but the issue still is what else are you going to do? Join the army, wait on tables or get an MBA? Law is still a viable alternative for those who want to work for themselves. Not much else you can do with a liberal arts background with the same potential to make money. Does that mean going into 200K of debt? Of course not. So go to your local state school at night, get your JD on the cheap.

Lets look at Nando. He graduated from Drake but NEVER took the bar. What does Nando gain by not taking the bar? Well he does not spend the relatively paltry sums necessary to take a review course. And he doesn't have to fork over bar dues every year. But what does Nando lose? lets say Nando knows somebody badly injured in an accident and he sends him to the best lawyer in town, who achieves a 7 figure settlement. As a member of the bar, Nando could get a referral fee,sometimes as high as 50%, which could mean 200K in his pocket. As a non member of the bar, all he is entitled to is a nice letter thanking him for the referral.

You truly are a moron. How many million dollar settlements do you see in actual personal injury cases? Maybe you have heard of tort reform, Bitch? Also, you can never overestimate small town jurors’ proclivity to be tight-fisted, when awarding damages.

I am posting the following, for YOUR benefit, 11:22, since practically everyone else who visits this site understands the situation.

On June 18, 2013, Virginia PI firm of Overbey, Hawkins & Wright posted an article on their website, under the headline “Lynchburg jury awards $80k in soft tissue injury case.” Look at the portion below:

“Recently, David Hawkins tried personal injury case in Lynchburg Circuit Court involving a rear end collision that resulted in soft tissue neck [and] back injuries to the Plaintiff.”

Now, review the conclusion:

“Insurance company adjusters will admit in private that they only make low offers in Lynchburg because jurors there are ultra-conservative and render low verdicts. The only way to change this is to try cases and get good verdicts, as was fully justified in this case.”

Christopher M. Davis, of Davis Law Firm in Seattle, published an entry titled “What You And Juries Don't Know About Civil Injury Cases.” Take a look at this excerpt:

“In more than 90-95% of personal injury lawsuits, it is the DEFENDANT (or more precisely the defendant's INSURANCE COMPANY ) that requests a jury! Why is this true? Because juries will typically award less money (and sometimes no money) in personal injury cases than the judge will award.

Insurance companies are fully aware of the statistics that show a jury will typically award much LESS MONEY to an injured plaintiff than an experienced judge, especially in certain types of claims, like medical malpractice, soft tissue injuries, and other cases which may be difficult to prove.”

Lastly, I would be wasting money that could go toward my kid, by even applying for the bar exam, waterhead. I have no interest to do so, as I work in a non-law position. Unlike you, I have great benefits. By the way, do you imagine – for one second - that the cockroaches on the committee would take kindly to me referring to judges as bag-men for Industry or to “law professors” as vile pigs?!?! Grow a brain stem and a pair of balls, Bitch.

"The classic “referral fee,” whereby an attorney receives a fee for the referral of a case to another, is a form of fee sharing/fee splitting. Attorneys who are not in the same firm may share/split fees only if (1) the division is proportionate to the work performed, or each attorney assumes joint responsibility; (2) the client agrees in writing, including agreement about the share to be received by each attorney; and (3) the total fee is reasonable. Model Rule 1.5(e)."

Learn how to read. It might come in handy since YOU obviously want to be a lawyer, despite the attorney glut and crushing levels of NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt. Simply referring a case to another lawyer WILL NOT result in a huge fee to the attorney who brought the case to the attention of the guy doing all the work.

By the way, I don’t expect a referral fee for bringing your sister’s services to the attention of pimps and strip club managers.

Fred Rodell taught law at Yale University, when he authored this scathing critique, “Woe Unto You, Lawyers!” This was written in 1939. Scroll down to the third page, and look under the Preface:

http://www.fredrodell.com/pdf/Woe_Unto_You_Lawyers.pdf

“By the time I got through law school, I had decided that I never wanted to practice law. I never have. I am not a member of any bar. If anyone should want, not unreasonably, to know what on earth I am doing – or trying to do – teaching law, he may find a hint of the answer toward the end of Chapter IX.”

Now, go cry into the corner – and burn Rodell in effigy. Then take your meds, and do some yoga – or go eat some vegan food, pussy.

Your opinion here Nando is really evidence of your lack of experience. It is very true that juries are very hard on the questionable injuries. Whiplashes (flexion extension - - soft tissue injuries) without objective evidence of injury are difficult cases. Minimal impact cases are difficult cases. And of course, there are insurance doctors who will say no matter how bad your injuries that they were not caused in the accident. What is not difficult are cases where people are really injured. In those cases, juries, even in conservative areas, will attempt to see justice done and will give the injured party the benefit of the doubt . . so long as they are a likeable person.. Of course, different juries in different parts of the country might value money differently. One jury might think 50K is a lot of money, another might think 1 million is not enough.

BUT, the fact is that most jurors take their duty seriously and if the evidence establishes serious injury, they may well award serious damages?

How many million dollar awards are there? Based on how you asked the question, there are a heck of a lot more of these cases than you are aware of. Railroad workers, Jones Act Seamen, etc. often are badly injured and there are essentially limitless amounts of insurance coverage available. Insurance bad faith awards can oftentimes get far beyond policy limits. Tort reform has hurt in some states but not all. Even so, Economic damages, without regard to pain and suffering, can be millions to a young man who can never work again. I admit the new health care act is bound to hurt because juries will know that a person’s future medical bills will be taken care of, but the way the system has worked up until now, a bad injury can result in millions just for the cost of future medical care.

I get you might have trouble with the bar given your published viewpoints, but I would love to see you duke it out with them if they tried to deny you admission. After all, you have a First Amendment right to express your opinions, and not being a member of a bar, you can not as of yet have violated any Rules of Professional Responsibility, such as not speaking poorly of Judges in public.

Regardless, the chances of your meeting a person in real life who is badly injured and who accepts your referral to a practicing attorney is a heck of a lot better than the chances of your hitting on a lottery ticket.

@ Anonymous August 20, 2013 at 11:22 AMYou are literally a know-nothing buffon.1. Law is NOT a viable alternative for those who want to work for themselves! I had my own solo practice, and wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy.2. Your blather about 'referral fees' is removed from reality. If Nando is not planning to practice law why should he pay the estimated $1000 for yearly CLE credits and yearly licensing fees?

I don't care for your dishonest b.s., if you're going to talk up going into solo practice or getting referral fees, at least you should have the common decency to tell the readers you have ZERO experience in either! Please go away you silly fucktard.

Cooley Law Schools argument that the unemployment of law grads is cyclical is pure hogwash. I graduated Cooley long before the recession and passed the bar but never was able to find employment. I was the only one in my family to even finish college and so there was absolutely no professional network I could utilize. All these law schools who talk about their alumni base is meaningless. Its like trying to land a corporate job just because you attended the same high school. You are still a stranger. Plus, this was before Nandos blog was created so the only source of employment statistics were US News and the Princeton Review.

Christopher Knorps doesn't know anything about law. Referral fees of 50%? I pray you were joking (or drunk) when you wrote that. If not, you're not a moron like nando said. You're a flat out fucking retard if you were serious.

News flash Dumbshit. Juries are tight because they don't want to see someone get a million dollars just 'cause they suffered an injury. People get injured every fucking day. And they don't sue that often. They go to the hospital and then pay the co-pay. Get checked out and move on with their lives.

A lot of times you'll see some sad sack small businessman up there in a shitty suit. The jury (especially in rural areas) will think his business is on the line. They don't know he's got insurance and that the insurance co. is paying the lawyers.

I was called for Jury Duty maybe ten or so years ago and I went into the voir dire room and the two lawyers asked a lot of questions.

It was a medical malpractice suit and when they got around to me they asked me about my education and I said I went to Touro law school and was working as a house painter but was trying to pass the bar exam.

One of the lawyers looked at me like I had dropped out of the sky. I think it was the plaintiff's lawyer.

Anyway, after some minutes, a woman asked a question about insurance companies and wanted to know if the malpractice suit was really going to be paid for by an insurance company.

The two lawyers exchanged meaningful glances, and the entire room was dismissed.

_____________________

Some years later I was in a 7-11 store on the East end of Long Island and I saw a very tall and somewhat crumpled in appearance fellow along with his overweight wife piling all sorts of snack junk food on the counter and I was kind of annoyed because they were holding up the line as they rummaged around the store for candy and crap snacks etc.

The face of the tall and pale and gross and clinically obese husband (I assume) was so familiar and I couldn't place him, and it took me a while to remember where I had seen the guy before, and finally I realized that the guy was one of the lawyers that I spoke to in the voir dire for the medical malpractice case some years before in the Riverhead, NY courthouse.

True story.

BTW, on that day, the entire room of voir dire candidates, including myself, was dismissed with an explanation that the suit had been "settled."

If any records are kept by the Riverhead, NY courts, they will show my appearance as a potential Juror from the time I speak of along with the names of the 2 lawyers that conducted the questions until the one woman asked about whether or not insurance companies pay for the whole kit and caboodle.

I tried to write this response four different ways trying to explain the error of your thinking but it's just easier to say you're a fucking idiot. Referral fees never happen. Unless there is a blatant conflict of interest most scumbag PI lawyers will figure out a way to keep a case. If they can't, they give it to their law partner or close friend. I've never seen a referral fee arrangement signed ever. If a case is decent PI lawyers will fight like wild dogs for it. You know absolutely nothing about it.

You should go become a PI lawyer if its such a splendid field of law. Moron.

Yes, at least they used to be. I believe they still are in States like Louisiana. In Florida they are 25% and they are paid all of the time to attorneys for nothing more than referring a case, and for their being on the contract and potentially liable to the client.

And before you call me "dumbshit", perhaps you should try reading a few verdict reporters and see what Juries truly award in cases that are deserving.

Businessmen sue each other all of the time, and Juries, if voir-dire is handled properly, are well aware that there is insurance, if there is insurance.

There are people not cut out for the professions, mainly people who can't accept alternative viewpoints without responding like children. And solo practice is by no means not for everybody. But to suggest there are not thousands of "solos" out there making viable and sometimes great livings is simply complete ignorance.

Again, moron, go out and be a solo PI if its such a glorious profession. I hope you have money in the bank because it could be YEARS before you get a decent case. Hope you have the cash to front court reporters for deps, expert witnesses, filing fees, lawyers service, process servers, and all the other costs associated with beginning a litigation, without ANY guarantee you'll even get a settlement offer, regardless of how much of a slam dunk you think the case is. Insurance companies are fighting tooth and nail now. They aren't just cutting settlement checks. All the solos I know are stressed-out beyond belief losing their hair. Early in my career I learned that getting a job at an established firm (whether it has 20 attorneys or 200) is golden. Being a solo might sound romantic and "being your own boss" awesome but come back on this blog after you aren't able to secure a line of credit and are unable to build any sort of practice since (unless you have good contacts and an established network) you're trying to penetrate a saturated market. There is one gold-plated PI lawyer in my area who gets all the good cases because he's been doing it for about 40 years. Yeah, he's a slick mafia lawyer with a pinky ring and sharp suits. But for every 1 of him there are 20 miserable solos/PIs barely getting by. If you want to be a solo I'd focus on transactional law (real estate closings), municipal (traffic) law, tax appeals, and perhaps matrimonial law. Still, it's going to be a hustle and you'll never know where your next paycheck is coming from.

Most judges in NJ (where I practice) are all former PI lawyers who got political to get appointed so they have a guaranteed form of income. Judges in NJ make $165k/yr and most judges (again, former shitbag PI lawyers) are grateful for the guaranteed salary.

@AnonymousAugust 20, 2013 at 5:47 PMYou. Are. A. Dumbshit. How many years have you worked as an attorney you retard? I give Nando huge credit for cutting his losses and not 'hanging a shingle'.

I did the solo thing, you have no concept of what's involved on a day to day basis. Your utter cluelessness shows through with the stupid referral fee comments as well. You clueless piece of shit, do you really think clients with multi-million dollar personal injury cases are going to seek you out? Idiot. I'll join the other commentator in wishing you GOOD LUCK ON YOUR SOLO CAREER FUCK-TARD.

Let me add to all the excellent posts and comments calling out Fuck-tard's (also known as AnonymousAugust 20, 2013 at 5:47 PM) claims about the glory of being a solo practitioner in the personal injury (PI) space.

Dear Fuck-tard, you are not worth responding to, but there is a risk that a 0L could stumble on this blog and perhaps believe the b.s. you are dishing out. Here's how the real world works in the PI game. If you are a very successful plaintiff's lawyer, with a track record of success, the insurance companies are more inclined to settle and favorably. If you're a solo starting out, the insurance company's attorney will be inclined to litigate the case or settle for pennies on the dollar, and make it very difficult for you to make money on the deal- they have nothing to fear from you.

I'll say this again, it's not possible as a newly minted attorney to hang a shingle, and then immediately make $ in the PI space. This is bullshit that's spouted by the TTTs, 'just hang a shingle and you'll do fine....'

Keep in mind you know nothing about the financial affairs of all these success story PI lawyers of which you speak (assuming you know any solos and aren't some fanatical lying shitbag named Chris Knorps).

I know plenty of lawyers whose families were wealthy before they became lawyers. My close friend is a solo who lives on Park Avenue (in the 30s) in Manhattan. From the outside you'd think this guy was an independently wealthy and successful attorney given the way he carries himself and projects himself. But what most people don't know is that he inherited his wealth when his father passed away. His main source of income is a 5 story walk up apartment building in Queens that he inherited from his father and from which he collects rent. I'd be surprised if he was breaking even on his solo practice. It's easy to be a solo when you get close to a million dollars in inheritance and a rented apartment building without a mortgage that gives you cash on the barrelhead every month. Also, when he got married the father had bought him the apartment on Park Ave. If he had been a broke-ass, unconnected JD when he graduated he'd have been truly fucked.

A lot of people who go into law have a family safety net to fall back on. I know countless people who came from secure, upper class lifestyles that are lawyers in boutique firms (or solos) who keep their heads above water because their parents paid their tuition, hooked them up with a job, or have family properties where they can live and vacation. Myself included. I can't tell you how many chicks I impressed by saying I was a lawyer (barely making ends meat at a boutique firm) but taking them to my family's beach house, golf club, etc. making them think I had lots of dough.

It's all about perception. If they don't have financial security via family wealth then they are probably living on credit.

If you are new to this blog, know this. The guy claiming lawyers can get a 50% fee just for referring a case to another ambulance chaser just graduated from a shithole law school in Brooklyn. He just took the bar exam. Now the dumb piece of shit is saying they only get 25% of the winning lawyer's pile of cash.

Someone doesn't know how to fucking read. A 25% (or 50%) referral fee is not going to happen. In your case, I guess it could happen if you suck the other lawyer’s dick every day. And you’d have to assume joint responsibility, fucking retard. And get this asshole: PI is cut throat. Those lawyers are fighting each other for table scraps. Knorps, I'll be looking for your name when the NY bar results come out in November. You know, when you’ll be living in CA.

You got schooled again. You took out a shit ton of student loans to be this incompetent and ignorant? Really?

Let me jump in here too. Only because I worry some 1L might find this entry and take Knorps's bullshit seriously.

That kid just graduated from law school in June. You can look that up if you want. He doesn't practice law. He's not working in a law firm even. He doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.

As someone else pointed out, here's how PI works. The established firms get the big cases, and they can get a settlement out of defense much, much easier than a baby lawyer can. Ins. companies have been challenging claims over $10,000 tooth and nail for over a decade now. If you want to be a PI lawyer, you better have money to start with. Because it can take years (maybe up to 5 years) before you start making positive income. Now imagine trying to pay back a shitload of student loans while spending more than you make.

It's also important the extent and type of injury and who it happens to. Lost an arm in the chicken plant or potato farm? Here's $40K (if you're lucky). High school drop out working at 7-11 gets a soft tissue brain or spine injury? Don't expect anywhere near a 7 figure settlement. Now if a 40 year old neurosurgeon gets a soft tissue injury in an accident he'll have the best PI team and he'll get paid. But very few of these cases arise. Guys with money don't fuck around. They go straight to the best injury lawyers in town (if those firms don’t first meet them in their hospital bed.)

On August 12, 2013, Cockroach Brian Leiter posted a $elf-$erving piece of drivel labeled “Should the ABA require faculty tenure for accreditation?” Here is the entire text of Ass-Hat’s article:

“The relevant committee appears to be leaning against the requirement. I'm not sure it should be an accreditation requirement, but some of the comments attributed to committee members are pretty appalling:

No one outside of academia understands why tenure exists, council member and accountant Edward Tucker argued, adding that tenure offers a level of job protection unheard of nearly any other profession.

No doubt what Mr. Tucker means is that most people in the United States (other than federal judges, teachers, many unionized workers, etc.) "understands why tenure exists," whereas in many other countries "tenure" is easily recognizable as a form of employment security that contributes to human well-being. But regardless of American ignorance, surely an ABA committee ought to be composed of people who understand what tenure is. Tenured employment is the opposite of at-will employment: it means that, usually after a probationary period, an individual can only be terminated "for cause." Universities have been excessively lax about terminating faculty "for cause," which contributes to the current atmosphere of suspicion of tenure. Tenured employment makes for more humane working and living conditions for employees, and protects them from arbitrary treatment. In the academic context, it also protects freedom of research, teaching, and inquiry. Those are the reasons for tenure. Must every institution offering legal education have tenure? Not obviously, though all the serious ones will. But regardless, members of the ABA council ought to educate themselves about tenure. (In the event that Mr. Tucker has been misquoted, he should send a letter to the editor to correct the record.)”

Of course, the dung beetle is upset with the dialogue and proposals. Did anyone else laugh when the hag equated tenure with “humane working and living conditions for employees”? You are not working in a sweatshop, warehouse or coal mine, jackass. The vast majority of U.S. workers are not unionized, and they have no real bargaining power in comparison to the owners. There is NOTHING special about “law professors.” Your “work” could be streamed online.

Brian Leiter should keep his mouth shut, and enjoy the fact that he has lived very well off of the federally-backed student loan system – for decades. Stick to Friedrich Nietzche and “philosophical naturalism,” tool.

This is simply evidence you have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, this claim is likely limited by worker's comp immunity, but assume the arm was lost by defective machinery resulting in a valid products liability claim. The arm off of an uneducated, young worker can easily be worth a million or more, because that worker will likely never be able to work again. The net present value of lost future earnings could be huge. If you understood this, you would value the claim appropriately instead of giving it away for nothing.

With regard to insurance companies, they are very difficult to deal with with ALL claims as of late. But too many attorneys don't know how or are reluctant to try cases. Which means if you are out there on your own . . .LEARN HOW TO TRY CASES AND TRY THEM.

"High school drop out working at 7-11 gets a soft tissue brain or spine injury? Don't expect anywhere near a 7 figure settlement. "

A "soft tissue brain injury . . closed head injury can easily be worth seven figures or more . . IF IT CAN BE PROVEN BY CREDIBLE MEDICAL TESTIMONY. again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Look, I am not saying anybody should go to law school. What I am saying is that you inexperienced guys are obviously inexperienced based on what you say. So should people listen to me? Maybe not. But they sure shouldn't listen to you either . . defeatists before you start.

Now if a 40 year old neurosurgeon gets a soft tissue injury in an accident he'll have the best PI team and he'll get paid. But very few of these cases arise. Guys with money don't fuck around. They go straight to the best injury lawyers in town (if those firms don’t first meet them in their hospital bed.)

You have to have money to get credible medical testimony. Yep, try that case straight out of law school. Fucking shitbag. Depos cost money, getting experts costs a lot of money. It all adds up. And if you lose the case or get no settlment (and the ins co. is not going to settle with a wet behind the ears punk like you) guess what? You get to eat all those costs.

A lost arm on the job is going to be decided by the WC statute but not always, dipshit. Occasionally, you’ll see a worker go to district court over the matter. No way in fuck is someone getting 7 figures for a lost arm. You can still work in a factory or desk with one arm, shit for brains.

I worked PI in the 1990s along with some family law (in Virginia if you must know). It was glutted back then. And that was before the ins cos. decided to fight anything over $10 grand. Someone else here practiced PI law in NJ. Another guy from NY. These guys know what they're talking about. You, on the other hand, don't know a fucking thing. In a few months, you'll be joining JD Painter as someone who failed the NY bar exam.

You obviously know nothing about PI or med mal. "Credible" expert testimony is largely a joke at this point. Each side has their own expert and it just depends on the jury you get. I remember when I did PI defense we had an expert we always used to downplay injuries, we called the doctor "No pain Jane" The defense pulls out its expert, the plaintiff pulls out its expert, and you hope you have a sympathetic jury (if you're the plaintiff) or a stone-faced jury (if you're the defendant). I've seen people offered $300k to settle and they took their chances at trial and were awarded $80k. Again, you know nothing. Pull your head out of your ass already. This isn't a joke like you're telling someone to buy coke over pepsi. Law school is expensive and you're talking about a person's life. Stop blowing smoke about solo PIs making good livings. It isn't the case at all for 90% of them. Some idiot might believe you saying that being a solo PI lawyer is a "viable" profession in which you could be gainfully employed. Not true.

Defeatist from the start? Quite the contrary. I think one of the main benefits of this blog is to warn people of the perils of law school and the legal profession so they can make an informed decision BEFORE they go to law school and choose this profession.

There are plenty of practitioners who come on this blog and tell people how it is. If you want to financially ruin yourself after having all this information out there then that's up to you. But please don't call us defeatists. We grind it out every day to make a living.

Your fun has yet to begin yet because you're a fucking idiot that took the NY bar and is choosing to move to California afterwards to sail around the world (makes no sense). WE aren't inexperienced, but YOU most certainly are.

@12:51PMGo Fuck Yourself. You don't know your head from your ass. Listen you stupid dumb-fuck, it's obvious you've never actually practiced law. I have practiced law and the other commentators are 100% correct and you are a deluded stupid piece of shit. Just to reiterate:1. Litigating PI cases (especially med mal) takes extensive resources and money.2. Building a PI practice is very difficult and time consuming. 3. Even if you get a few PI cases, do you have the financial resources to slug it out with a well-funded corporate defendant or insurance company? 4. On top of litigation expenses, do you have a bankroll to pay for living and office expenses while working these PI cases? It takes TIME to work these cases, and the insurance companies have no problem dragging things out and bleeding you slow.

Earlier posts mentioned personal injury law and recommended instead to do transactional law like real estate closings. I can tell you that doing real estate closings is extremely cut-throat, ridiculously so.

For one thing, non-attorneys, like many other areas of law are trying to take over the real estate closing business at cheap prices. In fact, most states do not require you to be an attorney to perform real estate closings. There are national non-attorney closing companies with large resources that are trying to cut attorneys out of the closing business.

In addition, there are thousands of attorneys trying to get the business. My regular clients were being solicited on an almost daily basis. Not infrequently, I would lose closings because someone involved in the transaction had a brother, cousin, or friend that was an attorney and they owed it to them to give them a closing as a favor. I do not think dentists or doctors lose business because a patient's cousin needs the money. There are just so many attorneys.

Closing fees are extremely price sensitive with a lot of undercutting. If the closing does not go through you are expected to eat the costs.

Speaking of personal injury, the law schools will most likely target the disabled to fill empty seats. That is how low these cockroaches will sink. They will know the disabled cannot work as union autoworkers, Fed Ex drivers, police, construction workers so they will pitch the diversity baloney targeting the physically infirmed. Soon as they graduate and are out the door they will be forgotten and ignored.

The ONLY way to make decent money as a solo is to either have a very large transactional business with significant volume OR to do personal injury on contingency, or possibly insurance coverage issues which often allow for the insured to get attorney fees if he wins.

Yet again the Wall Street Journal published another article that the legal profession is laying off workers and downsizing. The August 21 article is called PUBLIC DEFENDERS FALL TO THE SEQUESTERS and it highlights that the Feds are laying off public defenders for Federal Criminal Courts due to austerity measures. One statistic the article mentions is the budget for the federal public defenders nationwide has been decreased by 10% and resulted in layoffs and furloughs. A Harvard law professor and University of Utah law professor wrote the article. Same Federal government backing law school student loans is also laying off the Federal public defenders.

a recent quote from the dean at indiana tech law school:"The second thing is you have to have a thick skin. There are people in the blogosphere who are vicious with their comments. It allows them to be anonymous and it shows the darker side of our profession. I use them as Exhibit A for the need for more professionalism and ethics training. There’s no doubt that it’s hurtful to read things that suggest the faculty members are just trying to steal student’s money and that the school has no soul. In one case, we had a blogger who took off after one of our students and commented about the student for making this choice. You just have to have a thick skin because, unfortunately, there are people out there who do not have all the facts and have not done their homework but have very strong opinions."

First of all, I am not Christopher Knorps or Infinity. I am and have been a successful trial lawyer for years now and have made a very good living in my "solo practice" doing "shit law".

The point is that I am not unsympathetic to your cause, but when some of you act like unprofessional children, you damage your cause because nobody will take you seriously. I get the commodes. They have shock value and get attention. But when you act like teenage foul-mouthed kids, nobody will take you seriously. If you want to be laughed at, you are doing a good job.

I have said this before and I will again. I am not recommending anybody go to law school. It is a difficult career and from what I read a totally new world than when I started. BUT if you are already a lawyer, I think you are nuts not to at least pass the bar. You are already at the finish line. Just cross the damn thing. It is defeatism and negativity that prevents you from finishing and that is just dumb. You would be surprised how often you will personally know "injured" people and YES, you can get referral fees for sending these cases to competent counsel who is willing to pay one.

Additionally, there is no point crying in your soup if you already went to law school, have debt and no job. No money to prepare a case for trial? Then associate a lawyer who does have money and work out a deal if you get the right case.

I mean to hear somebody say an amputated arm is only worth $40,000 shows an incredible lack of understanding of the way the system works. If you get that case and allow a defense lawyer to convince you that is the worth, you are likely committing malpractice if you take such a trivial amount for such a significant injury (assuming liability is not an issue of course).

What you guys think of as "shit law" is what tens of thousands of lawyers have been practicing in thousands of jurisdictions and courtrooms all over this country. In my mind, shit law equates to "big law". I knew many people who started out in big law. I started out in Mid law. I was so far ahead of my big law peers in experience after just a few years that it was no comparison. I went out on my own eventually because that is why I originally went to law school . . . TO WORK FOR MYSELF. If you are good, people will know it and you will get the business. Does everybody make it? Of course not. But to think that it is not possible to make it even today is just dumb.

Okay, I'm going to squash every single thing you just said since you are flat out lying.

I'm in midlaw and I would NEVER leave this job to become a solo. The only people I ever saw launch successful solo careers had solid client lists (not PI) and were on the payroll as Town Attorneys/Prosecutors/Judges or General Counsels at wealthy Cooperative/Condominium Associations. With those positions they were able to supplement their income if their solo practices slumped. I know a well-respected lawyer who is a town judge here in NJ in three different towns making $30-35k/yr in each position (so making ~$100k) and is a solo on the side doing transactional law and real estate (can't do criminal since he's a judge). Those judgeships are his bread and butter and he has openly acknowledged so to me. Keep in mind this man is also 60 years old (only state judges have to retire at 70 in NJ, town judges are exempt from that rule). I remember after the real estate crash his solo dried up. If he hadn't had those judgeships he'd have been screwed. Plus, he must be re-nominated by each town mayor and voted on by each town council every three years. Needless to say, he ends up sucking a lot of political dick and giving money to local and county Democratic Organizations.

If you were a lawyer (which you plainly are not given your posts) you'd know that any wise attorney would rather be a partner at an established firm (whether it be 500 attorneys or as small as 20 attorneys) that could weather economic downturns through lines of credit instead of being a solo on their own (or with one law partner) struggling every day. And guess what? If you are intelligent, hardworking, and well-connected and your solo practice flourishes you'll have firms wanting to buy your practice and book of business. I've seen plenty of solos (or boutiques with 3-4 attorneys) get absorbed by larger firms who wanted to beef up their healthcare/employment/real estate practices. And believe me, those little guys were glad to join a bigger shop (again, for the security and stability). Sometimes small groups of attorneys leave larger firms with clients to start their own firms but rarely nowadays. I just saw a friend's firm of 7 attorneys that had broken off a larger firm splinter and dissolve. Four lawyers went to biglaw, one is a solo (miserable), and the other two are scrambling talking to headhunters.

So, lying piece of shit, unless you: 1.) have jobs as general counsels or town attorneys/judges lined up on the side (again, this is the deal in NJ, not sure about other parts of the country, including places as close as NYC) or 2.)have solid clients in ongoing litigations (that pay) or a Grade A network that pushes you real estate closings, wills, and other small(shit)law business consistently, you will struggle as a solo.

Lastly, no one is "crying" on this blog. We are explaining that being a solo is not a "viable" career choice for a 26 years old debt-strapped JD with no connections. Maybe for older lawyers who worked at firms for a decade or so and built those business relationships and expertise, but definitely not for a newly-minted Esq. If they are "good" then they'll have graduated top of their class, been on law review, and most likely be hired by a firm out of law school that can pay them a base salary. When I was in PI defense our firm had to pay $7,000 to the head of neurosurgery at an area hospital to testify at a med mal. How the hell does a 26 year old JD get that sort of cash to fight insurance companies in court?

@5:00PM In one of the jurisdictions I practiced in, same deal. The solos receiving a steady stream of cases had been well known at the courthouse as public defenders or prosecutors before soloing. People fresh out of law school had slim pickings re. court appointments. Very slim pickings.

Lemmings- Do you understand the reality of solo practice yet? You'd do well to remember the judges and law firms don't see you as special snowflakes.

@9:33AM I appreciate you posting, but IMHO you're off base. Newly minted lawyers with no job offers need to seriously consider the opportunity costs involved with starting a solo practice and trying to eke out a living until the practice becomes profitable.

Simply put, given the crushing debt loads, if there is any reasonable employment opportunity, the newly minted law graduate may be well served by walking away from the degree and taking that non-law opportunity.

I've been there and done that. I'm an attorney, have a reasonable amount of practice experience in multiple domains, and credentials and experience in other fields including starting my own manufacturing company.

I believe Nando displayed admirable judgment in walking away from his TTT degree and getting a non-law job. Could he have grinded out an existence as a solo? Probably, but it would have been miserable and you would be lying if you claimed otherwise.

I think the marketplace has changed since either you or I started practicing. I would suspect that even the tried and true sources of income for solos, like taking court appointments for indigent defense or mental health commitments, are probably not enough to sustain a living given the competition and number of lawyers out there.

You admitted yourself that it's a 'new world' for lawyers now, and I think your assumptions about solo practice might not be tenable for newly minted lawyers. Then again, I don't practice anymore, so perhaps if there are some new lawyers who just hung out a shingle, they could chime in?

12:01 P.M., first, it is refreshing to actually read a written response by somebody who writes like a professional and not a foul-mouthed, angry, petulant child.

But perhaps you misapprehend what I say because I was not clear. I am not suggesting somebody turn down a job, any job, legal or not, to go solo. What I am suggesting is that if you already went to law school, you may as well try to pass the bar in your jurisdiction. You never know when that license might come in handy.

I am also suggesting that some of the posters on these boards are unemployed and obviously, given the content of their writings, angry and bitter. I am suggesting that rather than going crazy in your mom's basement apartment, you at least get out there and make the best of it. If that means helping out a few different law firms with their overflow work . . than do it. If that means holding their bags in Court, than do it. The time to have considered the opportunity cost was before you started law school. If you have gone the law school route and have no other job prospects, may as well make the best you can of a bad situation.

@12:49 PM Appreciate you posting a clarification, but again I'm going to have to disagree with you.

1. Your contention that young attorneys can offer to 'help out a few different law firms with their overflow work' would require a significant investment of time and effort to learn that practice area (e.g. buying practice guides, familiarizing oneself with current caselaw, motion practice, etc.) Remember, we're talking about kids fresh out of law school here, they just don't have the experience to hit the ground running.

In addition, I just don't see your advice on taking 'overflow work' as realistic. Why would a firm trust this work to someone fresh out of law school when they can farm it out to a more experienced practitioner?

2. Wouldn't that recent law grad be better served investing that time and effort in finding a career that would immediately pay the bills?

3. IMHO, I think Nando made a shrewd choice in weighing his options and realizing law was a non-starter.

4. Let's be real here, the vast majority of us have bills to pay and financial obligations. I don't believe that the course of action you're suggesting would pay the bills for these kids just coming out of law school.

5. BTW, I do know folks who have done the solo thing, and have become extraordinarily successful. We all know folks like this who are multi-millionaires (usually PI and class action stuff.) It takes tremendous self-discipline and a strong belief in one's abilities to get to that level, and these folks are very rare birds indeed.

@9:33AM.Hi, this is 12:01PM, posting a follow up reply. One of the issues I have with you talking up the solo route, is the incomplete and somewhat misleading idea that someone fresh out of law school should open a solo practice.

It's striking that you yourself have said you worked in mid-law, then left to start a solo practice. It's important for newly minted lawyers to understand that successful solo practitioners typically cut their teeth at the Public Defenders Office, the County Attorney's Office, Legal Aid, Mid-law, etc.

That is, before starting a solo practice, these attorneys typically obtained experience in a structured setting.

***ANYONE who advises people to hang out a shingle straight out of law school, is giving you misleading and unsound advice.***

I cannot imagine any experienced attorney disagreeing with the importance of obtaining real world practice experience BEFORE staring your own practice. And, many of the good solos I met had gotten their start working in small-law, mid-law, or as prosecutors, public defenders, etc.

Your comment is misleading because in the current environment, I seriously doubt the majority of newly minted law grads would have the same practical training opportunities. When I worked for the gov't, folks usually worked in those positions for 1-3 years, and then left for greener pastures. And, those types of jobs were actually obtainable because of the constant churn of attorneys. It's my understanding that people now cling on to those jobs and the opportunities have dried up.

Bottom line, the solo practice route is not advisable, especially in the context that 9:33AM is recommending. Think twice before following this guy's advice and remember that you will have to LOSE more money when starting your practice. Instead of sinking more money into starting a solo practice, perhaps you could consider using those funds to go to trade school (e.g. air conditioner repair) or something similar that actually pays the bills.

I'm 12:01 PM. BTW, these kids have a right to be angry and bitter. My yearly law school tuition was $2000 per year. I graduated without any student loan debt and saw the law degree as somewhat useful (easy for me to say this, since the degree was basically free.)

I cannot imagine being in the shoes of these recent law school grads with six figures of debt and no jobs, I feel absolutely terrible for these kids. And, it would be heart breaking if my kids were to find themselves in the same situation as some of the folks who are posting on this blog.

There's nothing wrong with righteous anger. These kids trusted their elders and those in authority and were betrayed (e.g. fraudulent law school statistics such as 95% job placement, $160K average salary for grads, etc.)

Lemmings, think carefully before believing this bald-faced lie that you can hang out a shingle and magically get 'overflow' work from other law firms. Why in the world would a firm incur the risk of sending out overflow work to someone fresh out of law school? Think about how crowded the legal market is, why would any firm be so foolish?

Objective

This blog is maintained by a graduate of a third tier law school. My goal is to educate prospective law students about the perils of obtaining a legal education. There are many pitfalls - the debt load, the oversupply of lawyers, the fact that there are not enough legal jobs to satisfy nearly 45,000 annual law graduates, and the reality that the majority of law school graduates will end up with low-paying jobs upon completion of their "legal studies."